Michigan Revote Unlikely, Says Obama Memo

Michigan Revote Unlikely, Says Obama Memo

Huffington Post   |   March 18, 2008 10:38 PM



*** NEW UPDATES BELOW (3/19) ***

CNN reports that some Michigan Democrats' are growing frustrated with Obama as the deadline nears for determining a plan for a Michigan revote.

"The Obama people are blocking it in the legislature," the Democratic source tells CNN, who says that the group has repeatedly and unsuccessfully reached out to the campaign for input and cooperation.

The source says that Obama's campaign has been asked to craft an alternative or to meet with the Clinton campaign to work out an acceptable compromise, but that those requests have been met with silence.

The New York Times reports that Hillary Clinton will begin campaigning this morning in Michigan for the revote that she has already agreed to support:

In a sign of how badly she thinks she needs the Michigan delegates to catch the Democratic front-runner, Senator Barack Obama, Mrs. Clinton made a last-minute schedule change and planned to fly to Detroit on Wednesday to plead with Michigan lawmakers to approve a new primary election in June to replace the January contest that awarded no delegates.


"We will go and make the case for a re-vote," said Mo Elleithee, a Clinton spokesman.

The Obama camp is accusing her of playing politics:

Even before Clinton announced her travel plans, Obama's spokesman accused her of merely looking out for her own political interests.


"As others in Michigan have pointed out, there are valid concerns about the proposal currently being discussed, including severe restrictions on voter eligibility and the reliance on private funding," said Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor. "We have raised these concerns, as legislators in Michigan did today, and we're waiting to see if these issues can be resolved by the Legislature."

The Clinton camp is likely more interested in the momentum that would accompany a Michigan win, a momentum that was denied when Florida quashed the possibility of a revote. As for the actual delegate count, even Clinton supporters doubt a revote would have much effect:

One of Hillary's most important supporters in Michigan, former Governor Jim Blanchard, went way off message in a conversation with me moments ago, saying that even if a revote were held in the state, it would likely be so close that it wouldn't make much of a material difference in the delegate count.


"I think if we had a vote in Michigan, it could easily be close," Blanchard told me. "The amount of delegates wouldn't make much difference."


UPDATE: The Obama camp has effectively ruled out the idea of a Michigan revote in a recent memo, citing the difficulty of organizing an unprecedented election in such a short period of time:

No one disputes that the election will have to be hurriedly prepared; and it is further accepted that it is, in material respects, unprecedented in conception and proposed structure. Michigan will be, for example, the first to state to have re-run an election in circumstances like these, to redress violations of party rules, and it will be the first to do so with the state supplying the legislative and administrative support but with private parties underwriting the costs with "soft money". Whether the state can achieve its goals here depends on the nature and seriousness of the legal and administrative questions presented by this initiative -- questions that, raised after the election, could put at risk the running of the election, undermine acceptance of the results if the election is held, and in both cases effectively deny Michigan voters, a second consecutive time, meaningful participation in the nominating process.


For the reasons discussed briefly below, there are such questions and they are serious both in nature and in their potential, if not likely, impact on the June election proposal.

Continue reading the memo.

UPDATE: The DNC has gone on record in suggesting that the current draft legislation in Michigan would pass muster, by their standards:

We have recently been asked whether the legislation as proposed by Michigan would fit within the framework of the National Party's Delegate Selection Rules. Our review of this legislation indicates that it would, in fact, fit within the framework of the Rules if, it were, passed by the state legislature and used by the Michigan State Democratic Party as the basis of drafting a formal Delegate Selection Plan. If a formal Delegate Selection Plan is received we will convene a meeting of the RBC to consider such a Plan.

However, the Michigan plan still needs a sign-off from both candidates, and the memo above makes it pretty clear that the Obama camp isn't budging. Remember that the Michigan legislators will take their spring vacation next week, so a decision needs to be reached by Friday if there is to be any chance of a June 3 primary.

UPDATE: Beyond the obvious logistical problem of running an entire election on private funds and little time, this is blow to post hoc crossover voting likely affecting the Obama camp's decision:

State Rep. Matt Gillard, D-Alpena, said the do-over primary will create as many problems as it solves, including barring participation by Democrats who, because they thought their party's Jan. 15 primary was a farce, voted for a Republican.

"This won't work," Gillard said. "People were told the Jan. 15 primary didn't matter. Now they're being told if they voted in it, they can't vote in one that does matter."



 

Comments
659
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next › Last » (7 pages total)

Give the voters a voice. It is unfair for the DNC to have any say in when these states hold their primaries. Why should Iowa, New Hampshire and 2 or 3 other states get to play king maker every election year. What a joke!!!

Ether hold new primaries in Florida and Michigan or count the votes as they stand. To exclude them is Un-American, and Un-Democratic!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:58 AM on 03/20/2008

The DNC should be in charge of setting the terms. HRC declared there would be no caucus in MI even though they usually have a caucus and its cheaper. Why did she say this? Cause she doesn't do so well in caucuses. Now, how is that fair?

I think all people should be afraid of an election that is not publicly funded. I agree MI and Florida should be mad about this, but be mad at their own political leaders. I'm not sure why they expect Barack Obama to go out of his way to make this happen when HE did not set the rules nor break them.

Bottom line: It just gives those who already hate him one more excuse.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:38 AM on 03/20/2008

Why would Obama agree to this when it still would not be a fair vote? All of the people who voted for a different party because they did not want to vote for Clinton can not re-vote. Somehow, Clinton thinks that is fair!
If you were Obama would you want to see a re-vote in a state that would not allow everyone to vote? She didn't care about the voters, she even said that Michigan votes would not count ( I heard her myself) now, she only wants to make sure you have your right to vote...and you believe her??
I guess that is not shocking though. This woman has been caught in one lie after the other for 35 years at least, she lied under oath as First Lady and didn't even blink, yet millions of people still believe her and are voting for her. She claims she will run with transparency, this one makes me laugh. She hasn't done that in, at least 35 years nor during this campaign, but that is how she will run the country, and people believe that.
This is a popularity contest, not an election for president. It's not about who can do the job, it's about what money can buy. Clintons have been around forever and own a lot of people, they have engaged in dirty politics for many, many years and have it down pat. If this were a fair presidential campaign then people would only look at facts. Yes, Clinton has more experience, she is older, however, that experience is mostly undocumented, seeing how things work and actually working them are not the same thing. She has also made many, many more mistakes than Obama. She has proven that she is emotional, or did she? I find it a little troublesome that she was in tears just two states into the race, which won her the state, she blamed it on the stress of campaigning, however, she has been involved with several states now and hasn't shed a tear since.Hmmm.
I find it strange that what she is demanding of Obama she refuses to do herself. Stranger yet that few people notice she does this. I find it strange that she made a huge deal of him stealing words when she has stolen words from him and others, and few people noticed. I find it strange that she has proven year after year that she lies, she even lied on the Bible as First Lady, and few people care, they continue to believe whatever she says. I find it strange that most people believe they know her better than the people who worked for her or the people that knew or worked for her do. When many people, not just one, is saying the same thing about someone there must be an element of truth to it. Just like , if there is nothing to hide then you hide nothing.
Emotion in the White House is not a bad thing, except we have had her emotion in the White House already. Broken items because she was mad, yelling at the staff and belittling them because she was emotional. Making enemies because she is quick to anger and long on revenge. That's what we need in the White House again? We can't afford to make more enemies, we need to focus on making amends to the ones that used to be our friends and bring down some of the hate running rampant toward our country. We need someone who can refrain from high emotion on a dime and get someone who can, not just converse with other heads of state but also ease the tension that has been created in the past 8 years. We need someone who can regain trust in the United States, from it's own people and people around the globe as well. Does that really sound like a Clinton to most people?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 AM on 03/20/2008


If their positions were switched, if Obama trailed Hillary by 115 delegates, I'm sure we'd hear Obama supporters demanding a revote in FL and MI.

Obama supporters: "It's not fair! The voters deserve to have their voices heard!"

You guys are so transparent it's almost funny.

Obama is sinking ... fast.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:49 AM on 03/20/2008

"I'm sure we'd hear Obama supporters demanding a revote in FL and MI. "
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. You wouldn't. The thing that separates Obama and Hillary- and their supporters- is integrity.
Hillary and her supporters care nothing about fairness, only about winning at all costs. I've seen over and over in posts by Hillary's supporters that they just don't value honesty and integrity. I promise you, if the roles were reversed and Obama had broken a pledge he made, and was pushing to violate the rules for his own political gain- he would lose my support immediately.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:57 AM on 03/20/2008

It's not about superdelegates. It's not about primary v. caucus. It's not about what happened. IT'S ONLY ABOUT WINNING IN NOVEMBER OR LOSING IN NOVEMBER. If this doesn't get fixed so that the FL and MI delegations are selected in a manner considered fair by all and seated so they can participate in the election, the Dems will almost certainly lose in November.



Partisan Obamaniacs and partisan Hillary Clintonites need to be ignored here so that this problem gets resolved to the satisfaction of the voters of FL and MI and the campaign workers of FL and MI, whose leaders are usually delegates to the Convention. MI is a blue state that's always very close. FL went blue in 2000, although it's electoral votes were counted in the red column. These two states are populous and at least one has to be won by any Democrat who has a chance of winning in November. A failure to resolve this problem means there will be a large number of voters and loyal Democratic campaign workers in those two states who won't vote, and some might even vote for McCain -- giving McCain the election..



So both sides have to stop playing short term politics with this. Clinton will not agree to a caucus and Obama won't agree to a Clinton-financed primary that adopts rules making it difficult to vote.



Obama and Clinton need to sit down today, personally, and tailor a solution acceptable to all. Then the DNC and the two state parties, the culprits in all of this, should develop a fair mechanism to pay for whatever is agreed to by Obama and Hillary.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:50 AM on 03/20/2008

Obama needs to reconsider and quickly too. I think the longer he delays the more the animosity against him in Michigan which might also carry to Florida.

Sen. Clinton can't come out of there with more than +20 delegates on the high end. Obama needs to start campaining there and they need to run that election.

My understanding is that this is a primary and I support it unlike the mail in nonsense that they were going to have in Florida. If both states want to run a primary that is in accordance with DNC rules they should.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:46 AM on 03/20/2008

Correction: I replied immediately without reading the story nor finding out what Obama's position is on the issue. It turns out he is not the one holding it up. Why? Because it has not been passed by the law makers nor has it been officially sanctioned by the DNC. Obama said he would play by the rules and that's what he has consistently done.

So, it is not on Obama, and the Clinton campaign is being disingenous when they accuse him.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:13 PM on 03/20/2008

Just like Hillary Clinton. She is always pushing. She is losing and so she wants the MI vote. She knew the rules beforehand, and signed off on them!!!! Can't we get this into our heads. Barac and the others played by the rules. Now she is going to be campaigning in MI to have the delgates seated? That woman will do anything to win, even to defraud. Hillary is desperate so she is forcing Barac's hand.
Further, she is not gracious at all. She had to make a speech the same day at almost the same time that Barac was delivering his important speech on race in order to pre-empt him. That was cruel and selfish. I would never vote for her. She is just so scheming, and dishonest. She is the one pushing the Florida and MI re-vote. Incidentally, CNN has just reported that she said that if these 2 states are not seated at the Convention, "it would Barac Obama's fault." What gall, what arrogancy of that woman! She will do anything to win.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:40 PM on 03/19/2008

This is WHY OBAMA will NEVER be president....he gets up...bid ass speech..a GOVERNMENT FOR THE PEOPLE BY THE PEOPLE....on and on..how great is our democracy, and then he blocks a whole state's population of democrats from voting.....it is SLEEZY....and for those of you who thought it was a great speech..with this new incident with the Reverend,,the Repubs will have a field day...I, as a democrat, am DISGUSTED at this MICHIGAN BLOCK by his campaign...this sounds like it is right out of the ROVE playbook. Truly the most DISGUSTING THING>...
winning the nomination by blocking the revoting of Florida and Michigan.....I hope he LOSES...
cheaters never win except Gearge BUSH....I am ashamed to be a DEMOCRAT>..WHY is the REVOTE up to the candidates?> That is ridiculous....Howard Dean must be an OBAMA supporter...you won't catch me in the voting booth in November...I am disgusted....and I live in Florida.....he does NOT deserve the nomination...he can give speeches. Hillary can run a countrry...wake up AMERICA.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:33 PM on 03/19/2008

Indeed.... scheming and plotting..... a bitter, bitter woman......... but people believe every thing that comes out of her mouth as it is the truth because she is the victim......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:17 PM on 03/19/2008

remember "words count", remember who said that (obama), what rev wright said were words that count. obama, by being in that church for 20 years, hearing sermons like that, going on tv and saying, he was not in the pew when he said that. no rev wright said that to him in person, although he will never admit it. he also said they talked about god and religion, in the speech he said he heard the rev wright say those things. what are we to believe. and his wife didn't help when she said this is the first time that she was proud of america. remember he didn't have to have the flag on his lapel. (why)? this seems to me to be really bad for him. the signs are there. he believed what rev right said. maybe not all, but some of it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:21 AM on 03/20/2008

Thomas Jefferson once said, "...the fundamental law of every society of individuals of equal rights; to consider the will of the society enounced by the
majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first
of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly
learnt..."

With Obama leading in the popular vote, the delegate count, and number of states won, a Clinton nomination, by a mid-stream change in the rules, would SURELY be theft, assumimg one of our Founding Fathers has ANY credibility at all. Of course, saying that Jefferson does not - which is the right of any American " would, to some degree, place those that make such a contention in a similar category as Minister Wright of Chicago.
Americans do believe in following the rules by which everyone agreed to compete initially, keeping score based on those same rules, and awarding "The Win" to the Leader based on both. Consequently, there is no way, when applying these objective standards, that Hillary Clinton can fairly win the Democratic Nomination, even with continued and vigorous attempts. If such a heist were to occur, the impact to the Democratic Party would resonate negatively for more than a few generations.

Worst of all, the Clintons seem not to care¦


favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 03/19/2008

I really wish people would listen to facts instead of spin.... is it so hard?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:10 PM on 03/19/2008

Neither candidate can secure the nomination unless Superdelegates make it possible.

To hell with that.

And no Democrat will beat McCain if the party is in any way perceived as forbidding Michigan and Florida from fully counting.

We can't let it happen.

So here's the deal: We have new primaries in both those states and complete the rest of the schedule as planned.

After that: WHOEVER HAS THE MOST POPULAR VOTES IS THE NOMINEE.

It's the only way to stave off division and defeat.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 03/19/2008

If MI and FL give the DNC a valid plan, set a date and allocate the funds, Obama would be forced to go along.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:08 PM on 03/19/2008

Senator Obamas only worry is who is paying for it.... that is it........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:09 PM on 03/19/2008

Did you change the spelling of your name?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 03/19/2008

I think he did...and I like it...kinda like a "I'm Spartacus....No, I'm Spartacus" kind of ploy.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 AM on 03/20/2008

Would all the paid Obama staffers stop posting drival on here...lol

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:37 PM on 03/19/2008

Would the clinton toe suckers kindly tell it that it has lost and that it will never, ever be POTUS

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:50 AM on 03/20/2008

Are you the hall monitor now...........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:08 PM on 03/19/2008

Did hillary pay you to say that?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:42 PM on 03/19/2008


Care to give an example?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:56 PM on 03/19/2008

Pray tell me how Obama could block a DNC sanctioned primary?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 03/19/2008

Also note Obama's comment today on the situations in Florida and Michigan...

"I want the Michigan delegation and the Florida delegation to be seated. And however the Democratic National Committee determines we can get that done, I'm happy to abide by those rules."

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:53 PM on 03/19/2008

it's easy, Obama doesn't HAVE to agree to anything. The way they have set this up, both candidates must agree with the plan in addition to the DNC. But, if what you are saying is that it would be politically uncomfortable for him to not agree, you're right. But, right now, he is just trying to wait out the clock until they run out of time. A revote is of no benefit to him at all. It could only cause him problems. And now he is just continually coming up with semi-plausible excuses for why he can't agree.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 03/19/2008

The candidates do not have to agree with anything....... He has said all along he would follow the rules, and anything they want to do... The ONLY thing he is concerned about is who is paying for it.........

He would easily win Michigan...... Clinton is only crying about it because she is behind.... I know when I am being used for my vote..........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:45 PM on 03/19/2008

They will never listen.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:50 PM on 03/19/2008

Obama was just on CNN a few minutes ago telling Anderson Cooper he would do whatever the DNC wants to do. Something sure isn't adding up from one minute to the next.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 03/19/2008

What? You can not tell the difference between the truth and the spin.......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:46 PM on 03/19/2008

LOTS of misreporting...

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:37 PM on 03/19/2008

Please do not listen to the media.... all they want is blood and infighting......

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:47 PM on 03/19/2008

He has always said he would follow the rules. Stop listening to hillspin.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:43 PM on 03/19/2008

Indeed he did.........

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:13 PM on 03/19/2008

From the start he has said that he will go along with the DNC.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:54 PM on 03/19/2008